


Does Lucan’s Civil War have a place for heroism and the heroic?

by Litsetaure



Category: Greek and Roman Mythology
Genre: Essays
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2013-07-11
Updated: 2013-07-11
Packaged: 2017-12-19 04:14:57
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 2,547
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/879346
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Litsetaure/pseuds/Litsetaure
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff"><p>Bibliography</p><p>•	Ahl, F. ‘Lucan, an introduction’ – Ithaca, 1976.</p><p>•	Caesar, ‘Civil War’, translated by J.F. Mitchell – Penguin Classics, 1972.</p><p>•	Homer “The Iliad” – Penguin Classics, published 2003, originally translated by E. V. Rieu, revised and updated by Peter Jones and D. C. H. Rieu.</p><p>•	Johnson, W.R. ‘Momentary Monsters: Lucan and his Heroes’ – Ithaca and London, 1987.</p><p>•	Leigh, M. ‘Lucan: Spectacle and Enjoyment’ – Oxford, 1997.</p><p>•	Lucan ‘Civil War’, translated by S.H. Braund, Oxford University Press, 1999.</p><p>•	Masters, J. ‘Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s Bellum Civile’ – Cambridge, 1992.</p><p>•	Virgil “The Aeneid” – Penguin Classic, published 2003, translated by David West.</p></blockquote>





	Does Lucan’s Civil War have a place for heroism and the heroic?

** Does Lucan’s _Civil War_ have a place for heroism and the heroic? **

****

In epic, the concept of heroism and heroes has been passed down the tradition for centuries. It has been transformed from Greek heritage with Homer, which then becomes Roman heritage with Virgil, Ovid and eventually Lucan.

 The changes in the nature of heroism and heroic figures have been substantial. Homeric epic is based around an idea of a ‘shame culture’, in which heroes were men who did great deeds of valour, by killing other great heroes, the greater the better, in battle and duel, as is shown in the ‘Iliad’. This meant that, if a hero did a great deed, then, according to the ‘heroic code’, the hero would win ‘timē’ or respect from other heroes, and this was how heroes were judged; on results, rather than on lineage.

 By Roman times, however, heroic nature had changed with Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’, and the figure of Aeneas as a more dutiful, or ‘pius’ figure, as he embodies all the values of a Roman, especially that of ‘pietas’, which is absent in many Homeric heroes. Also, there was less emphasis on the idea of a hero being judged because of deeds on the battlefield as, while this idea still existed, it was overshadowed by ideas of destiny and lineage. While Homer’s heroes such as Achilles and Hector were judged on exploits in war, Virgil’s chief hero, Aeneas, is judged on his descendants. This meant that a Roman hero would, theoretically, have a greater sense of duty towards his people and his country than a Homeric hero, although, by Lucan’s time, there were signs that this idea was changing once again.

By the time that Lucan was writing, a new concept of what constitutes a Roman hero had become popular in epic. This was the idea of heroes as symbols, an idea that had been referred to in Virgil’s ‘Aeneid’, with Aeneas, who is known as ‘the dutiful Aeneas’[1], as a symbol for piety. In Lucan’s ‘Civil War’, the heroes are people who ‘suggest in their different ways…the vast confusion and ineffable terror of the poem’s _materia_ ’[2], as the protagonists are all presented in contrasting styles, leading to questions over what, according to Lucan, constitutes heroism, as these ideas are sometimes very different to what constitutes heroism, according to Virgil.

The ‘Civil War’ has been cited as, having ‘no hero, or too many’[3], which is reminiscent of the ‘Iliad’, especially with the idea that Lucan does not necessarily present his heroes in a good light, leading to the question of whether his interpretation of heroism is closer to Homeric or Roman heroism. In turn, there is also a question of whether the backdrop of the poem is in itself heroic. It is a war, but it is a civil war, where ‘a mighty people [are] attacking its own guts with victorious sword-hand…kin facing kin’[4], so the Romans are essentially fighting themselves, until everything that has been built will collapse ‘under too much weight, Rome’s inability to bear herself’[5] which takes some of the glory out of the war. Similarly, the statement that ‘every deity will yield to you, to your decision nature will leave which god you wish to be’[6] does the same, because it implies that the only reason this war is happening is because the gods agree to it happening and not because the men are brave. Lucan is condemning the idea of civil war by showing it in such a macabre light and also by showing characters in an unfavourable light.

There is the question of why Lucan shows his characters in such an unflattering manner, aside from criticising civil war. At this point, one should remember that Lucan was one of a number of post-Augustan writers who ‘tended to see _their_ Rome and its history as terrifying and incomprehensible’[7], showing that, according to these writers, war is not the heroic environment that earlier epic writers had portrayed it as.

One of the characters portrayed by Lucan in such an unflattering light is Caesar. Before exploring Lucan’s take on him, however, it is interesting to view how he is presented by Virgil, when Anchises says at once, ‘What carnage when the father-in-law swoops from…the Alps…and his son-in-law leads against him the embattled armies of the East’[8], and moments later, ‘You who are sprung from Mount Olympus, you must be the first to show clemency’[9], showing, in the space of a few lines, Caesar’s fighting expertise, and his ability to show mercy, or _clementia_.

Lucan’s Caesar is portrayed very differently as soon as he is introduced. The first thing mentioned is how Caesar ‘had not only a general’s name and reputation, but never-resting energy… [he] never shrank from defiling his sword’[10], leading to a viewpoint that he revels in bloodshed, for the sake of his reputation, which is a very Homeric concept that portrays him in a similar light to Achilles, who, stating his intention to fight Hector, says ‘But now, may I win heroic glory!’[11]. Lucan has portrayed Caesar in similar fashion, as, like Achilles, he is confident of victory, which is somewhat unusual, as he ‘considers himself Aeneas’ successor’[12], and yet he displays characteristics unlike Aeneas and unlike those of a Roman hero.

Later, Caesar is visited by ghosts of the Pompeians he has killed, seeing ‘the ghost of a murdered citizen [standing] there… _he_ sees faces of old men, _he_ the forms of younger men…in _this_ breast is his father – all these shades are Caesar’[13], however, he is not afraid, reinforcing the idea that he ‘rejoices in mutilated corpses, loathe to have his masterpiece ruined by funerals’[14], giving an impression that this bloodlust and this slaughter that he participates in is his crowning moment, or his ‘aristeia’. However, this is tainted, because civil war is less heroic than other wars as Caesar is effectively fighting people who should be allies, not enemies. There is now a question of who is Rome’s true enemy, as they are all Romans, which also emphasises Lucan’s condemnation of civil war. Within this, there is also an idea that ‘the man who will be guilty is the man who made [Caesar] Rome’s enemy’[15], which further defiles Caesar’s ‘aristeia’, because, in participating in this war, he is as guilty of being Rome’s enemy as his adversaries are.

Interestingly, Caesar is the only character to invoke the gods, calling on the ‘Phrygian house-gods of Iulus’ clan’[16], showing his awareness of his status as a descendant of Aeneas. Ironically, when he does so, he asks them to ‘favour his cause, which is, in effect, the subjugation of Rome to himself’[17], giving his ‘heroic’ deeds a revolting twist, because, even though he does not mention Aeneas’ name, he is playing a part in destroying that which Aeneas helped to build the foundations for. Once again, there is the question of how heroic his actions are, because he is effectively destroying his own city.

One of the problems Lucan faced in his presentation of Caesar is that of his _clementia_ , or mercy, which is a distinctive Roman trait, but, in the epic, is almost entirely obliterated, except for an episode detailing events in Spain, where he ‘makes no effort to maintain the picture of ferocity and impatience’[18] so far created in the impression of Caesar, although he tries to diminish his humanity.

Caesar had also written an account in which he recalls his exploits in Spain. In his version of events, he had initiated the surrender of the Pompeians, promising to spare their lives, so that ‘everyone recognised that Caesar was reaping the benefits of his original clemency’[19].

Lucan’s version of how the surrender came about is rather different. He uses a desire for ‘the sacred love of the world’[20] as the reason for it, and that Caesar was affected by this love, thereby omitting any mention of his clemency. This device not only diminishes his Roman attributes, but also serves to make him out to be less of a hero because of it, as Caesar has lost the opportunity to do something great in showing mercy.

What is interesting about Lucan’s portrayal of Caesar is that, after initially showing him as such a ferocious warrior, he then goes on to describe him as someone bringing peace as his troops ‘abandon weapons to the victor and safe…with breast disarmed’[21], showing how, in such a time of war, ‘only Caesar seems to be able to make men free’[22] and bring peace. Once again, the issue of _clementia_ is raised, as the troops disarm themselves, thereby showing mercy that is unusually absent in their ‘heroic’ leader.

There is a message from Lucan in this move of the troops forgoing their weapons, that civil war is unheroic, because everyone is fighting their own people and that, not only should it not occur, but it is an unfavourable way to remember a great warrior.

As is traditional with epic, a principal hero always has a character whose characteristics oppose his own, and this is true with Caesar, whose balancing character is Cato.

Cato is first mentioned in Book One, where Lucan reveals that ‘each has on his side a great authority: the conquering cause the gods and the conquered Cato’[23], showing how Cato is matched against the gods as someone who the soldiers and commanders desire protection from. Despite this distinguished introduction, he is not properly introduced until Book Two, and then is ‘to all intents and purposes abandoned by Lucan until Book Nine’[24].

The opening of Book Two is important to the presentation of Cato as it is made clear that ‘the universe gave open signs of war’[25], showing that, not only Caesar and Pompey, but also the entire universe, is responsible for the civil war that Cato is about to become embroiled in. This becomes even more important when it is placed alongside Cato’s own words to Brutus, who has come to him for help, when he tells him ‘civil war is the greatest crime…to make guilty even me will be the god’s reproach’[26]. Cato is aware of his guilty part in the war, but, unlike Caesar before him, he ‘is not attempting to shrug off his guilt completely’[27], only saying that the reason he is guilty is because the gods have set the course for the events that will follow.

When Brutus comes to see Cato, he reveals that, ‘for Brutus, Cato will be the only leader’[28]. Such an appeal ‘distinguishes Cato not only from the crowd, but from Brutus, setting him apart from even the most courageous men’[29], making Cato an emblematic figure. It also serves to enhance the Roman idea of heroism, as he is portrayed in a much more Virgilian light than Caesar had been portrayed.

The comparison of Cato with Caesar comes to the fore in Book Nine, where Cato finds himself in Africa at the point of his ‘aristeia’, firstly when he ‘resolved to head for Libyan Juba’s kingdom bordering the Moors,’[30], but he fails to complete the crossing, because ‘Nature blocked their journey by interposing the Syrtes’[31]. There is a similar incident in Book Five, when Caesar attempts to cross the Adriatic, ‘and endures the perils of a great storm’[32] in his own failure to complete the crossing. Their reactions, however, are different, as, while the events of Caesar are drawn-out with his speech of accepting death by the sea as he believes he has done enough great deeds to win fame, Cato’s failed crossing is much less exaggerated, as he ‘voices no cry for a death beneath the billowing sands’[33] and, as he will soon encounter greater dangers, he is arguably more heroic than Caesar as he does not beg for death. He also appears more heroic as a leader, as he ‘draws his men up to his own level’[34], thereby making him out to be a more than competent leader as he will only lead after consultation with his soldiers and troops, whereas Caesar will make his men fear him, as well as reducing them to subordinates and making them inferior especially as he tells them ‘There is no need of prayers…how great will Caesar be? – in your hands it lies’[35]. The reason for this difference in treatment is because of the cause that the two leaders are fighting for; while Caesar fights to win glory for himself, in a manner that is very reminiscent of Homeric culture, Cato is fighting for the freedom of Rome, showing the piety that is associated with a Roman hero.

            The two characters also differ in their treatment of their troops when they disobey orders. While, on the one hand, Cato tells them that they are men who have ‘decided on one source of safety – following [his] camp…prepare your minds for…the highest toils’[36], showing that he prioritises their freedom and the freedom of Rome and its citizens above all things, Caesar views the term ‘citizen’ as an insult, and thereby ‘spurns his rebellious troops as unworthy of him, “cowardly citizens” who do not deserve to be called soldiers, much less _his_ soldiers’[37], showing how he desires only glory, seemingly uncaring about how many enemies he makes of friends in order to gain this renown.

            It is therefore true to an extent that the concept of heroism and the heroic does have a place in Lucan’s epic, although it is not necessarily always the heroism that is traditionally associated with a Roman hero, but instead there is a dominant showing of the more Homeric traits of heroism.

 

 

 

 

 

  


* * *

[1] Virgil, ‘The Aeneid’, Book 1, line 305

[2] ‘Momentary Monsters: Lucan and his Heroes’; Preface

[3]‘ Momentary Monsters’; p.1

[4] Lucan, ‘Civil War’; Book 1, lines 2-5

[5] ‘Civil War’; Book 1, lines 71-72

[6] ‘Civil War’; Book 1, lines 50-52

[7] ‘Momentary Monsters’; Preface

[8] ‘The Aeneid’; Book 6, lines 830-832

[9] ‘The Aeneid’; Book 6, lines 834-835

[10] ‘Civil War’; Book 1, lines 144-146

[11] Homer, ‘The Iliad’; Book 18, line 121

[12] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.210

[13] ‘Civil War’; Book 7, lines 772-776

[14] ‘Momentary Monsters’; p.102

[15] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.211

[16] ‘Civil War’; Book 1, line 196

[17] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.211

[18] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.192

[19] Caesar, ‘Civil War’; 74

[20] Lucan, ‘Civil War’; Book 4, line 191

[21] ‘Civil War’; Book 4, lines 382-383

[22] ‘Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s _Bellum Civile_ ’; p.87

[23] ‘Civil War’; Book 1, lines 127-128

[24] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.232

[25] ‘Civil War’; Book 2, lines 1-2

[26] ‘Civil War’; Book 2, lines 286-288

[27] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.240

[28] ‘Civil War’; Book 2, line 247

[29] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.235

[30] ‘Civil War’; Book 9, lines 300-301

[31] ‘Civil War’; Book 9, lines 301-302

[32] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.259

[33] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p. 262

[34] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.257

[35] ‘Civil War’; Book 7, lines 252-253

[36] ‘Civil War’; Book 9, lines 379-381

[37] ‘Lucan: An Introduction’; p.256

**Author's Note:**

> Bibliography
> 
> • Ahl, F. ‘Lucan, an introduction’ – Ithaca, 1976.
> 
> • Caesar, ‘Civil War’, translated by J.F. Mitchell – Penguin Classics, 1972.
> 
> • Homer “The Iliad” – Penguin Classics, published 2003, originally translated by E. V. Rieu, revised and updated by Peter Jones and D. C. H. Rieu.
> 
> • Johnson, W.R. ‘Momentary Monsters: Lucan and his Heroes’ – Ithaca and London, 1987.
> 
> • Leigh, M. ‘Lucan: Spectacle and Enjoyment’ – Oxford, 1997.
> 
> • Lucan ‘Civil War’, translated by S.H. Braund, Oxford University Press, 1999.
> 
> • Masters, J. ‘Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s Bellum Civile’ – Cambridge, 1992.
> 
> • Virgil “The Aeneid” – Penguin Classic, published 2003, translated by David West.


End file.
